Readers' comments

Iran has a right to pursue nuclear energy for civilian use and so far there is no evidence to suggest it is doing otherwise. Besides, suppose they were, they have legitimate security concerns. In Iran’s near abroad, there are over 150,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, many American and allied troops in Iraq, nuclear-armed Israel, and nuclear-armed Pakistan. With these types of neighbours and with the harsh criticism emanating from Europe and the USA, if you were the Iranian president, you would be foolish not to follow this route. Keep in mind also the Iraq was punished for pursuing nuclear weapons and failing. I understand these are not justifications to pursue nuclear weapons but the big powers pursued these programs without provocation or the kind of danger that looms large for Iran.

It is very straightforward for Iran to demonstrate it does not intend to build nuclear weapons. Simply give access to the IAE to the inventory of enrichment plants and let independent inspectors keep track of nuclear materials. The fact that Iran has not even began a process of serious international inspection provides more than enough reasons to suspect their intentions are not what they claim. If Iran wants to keep the enrichment program it must provide a mechanism to prove to the world it will not divert enriched uranium for the production of nuclear weapons. So far there is no evidence that the Iranian government is acting in good faith.

It is ridiculous to bracket Iran, a signatory to NPT, and entitled to pursue nuclear programme for peaceful purposes and energy needs, with the North Korea, a known nuclear proliferator, merchant of international nuclear blackmarket, no longer a member of NPT and defiant of international rules and norms. It was not for nothing that the US President, Obama, having discarded the Bush era prejudiced narrative of clubbing Iran with N.Korea and Libya as constituting an 'axis of evil', made overtures of friendship with Iran, though subsequent developments, like the presidential election in Iran, returning Ahmadinejad as President or his defiance of western pressures on Iran's nuclear pursuit, did again enrage the US and western powers, leading to a reversal of diplomatic engagement with Iran. The renewed threat of UN sanctions against Iran or asking Russia and China, the two traditional friends of Iran, to join the western bandwagon of blackmailing Iran on nuclear issue or threatening it with dire consequences do seem to be a part of western strategy to tame Iran. Surprisingly, even the IAEA, the UN watchdog on nuclear issues, has yet to come out with any authentic evidence of any violation of nuclear norms by Iran.

The essential flaw in all the effort expended on non-proliferation is that the basic technology is over 60 years old. Building the necessary infrastructure that will convert the know-how to an actual weapon is also well within the ability of any country that possesses even a moderate industrial base.

Once you factor this is in, the only ingredient needed to complete the process is the will to sustain the necessary effort in the face of pressure.

This is where the second contradiction of the non proliferation regime comes to the fore. The countries that are most likely to be deterred by the potential penalties of proliferation are those who are already in your good graces and don't want a falling out. But no leverage exists for rogue countries who are already in the bad books of the international community. In fact, as the North Korean case has shown, you get the attention and respect of the international community only when you do cross the nuclear threshold.

I am not going to be surprised when Iran explodes the Bomb. After all what can anyone do about it? Sanctions - They have been facing those for 3 decades. War - Seriously? after Iraq and Afghanistan? Even if China and Russia do toe the line and try to rein in Iran, what really changes?

Again a few points: Firstly Iran is not getting nuclear weapons. Its nuclear efforts are civilian and driven by a cost benefit analysis and not a strategic need to get WMDs (please refer to the US intelligence briefing for confirmation). Secondly Iran’s missile and aerospace technology is mainly home grown with help from Ukraine, Russian federation (there are no secret deals with the KGB (or more correctly the FSB)), China, North Korea and perhaps Pakistan (and to a far lesser extent some other countries). Most of the aircrafts and guided missiles produced are copies of western models or domestically manufactured and/or versions of Chinese, Korean and Russian models. They are all conventional and in line with Iran’s strategic needs of self defence. Iran as a sovereign nation and a member of the UN and one which has not initiated a war in 250 years has the inalienable right of self defence and that of maintaining military forces and a military industrial complex. Their main concern is not being invaded and as one of the oldest and largest countries in the region, exerting their influence in the vicinity. It is only in attempting to exert their influence in some instances and by some intelligence operations or by supporting groups like the Hezbollah that Iran and the west/Israel come up against each other. Even if Iran did get WMDs this would not give anyone the right to attack them. Indeed if they had the WMDs the likelihood of an attack would be severely reduced (just look at North Korea and Israel; also please refer to some of Mr. Kissinger’s writings on the matter). Ayatollah Khomeini gave a religious ruling against the WMD’s or their use. The only circumstance in which the followers of Khomeini could use them is if they are attacked with them first. Also the Iranians are neither suicidal nor genocidal. So the possibility of an Iranian attack on Israel is near zero. As for an Israeli attack, this would be foolish to the extreme. Israel lacks strategic depth and Iran is not Syria. The Israelis did not win against the Hezbollah (a very small and poorly armed ally of Iran) despite the fact that they have a border with them and could use their air, naval, ground and space/intelligence assets against them (numerically they also outnumbered the Hezbollah). So the possibility of wining against the Iran is close to zero. Iran has no territorial claims on any country and enjoys good relations with most regional states.

The position of this Russian KGB Inc towards Iran is in total contradiction with his position on Chechnya.

For the purposes of full disclosure, I think that there is no legal basis for the Russian Federation’s leadership to assert sovereignty over Chechnya, since the latter never ratified the Federation Treaty nor approved the 1993 Russian Federation Constitution in what any trained, neutral observer would term a fair and free referendum, and both Chechen and Russian leaders who ordered or condoned attacks on civilians have committed crimes against humanity under international law, and should be regarded as war criminals by the international community.

The ongoing conflict is not worth the life of a single Russian or Chechen. The Russian political leadership is deluding itself if it believes that it and its collaborators can physically eliminate the enemy and appease the remaining elements of the Chechen population. Blood feuds tend not to end without generational change or the political and military leadership recognizing the fruitlessness of their endeavors.

I would highly recommend to people who have not seen it to view Nikita Mikhalkov's recent film "12," which is based on the U.S. film "12 Angry Men." It involves the story of a young Chechen boy accused of murdering his adoptive Russian father, a retired Russian officer. While the film's characters are not entirely realistic, Mikhalkov's message should strike a responsive chord with all Russians.

RIA Novosti: What do you expect from meetings with the Russian President and Prime Minister? What questions would you ask them as part of the “Russia and the West” discussion or on a different topic?

Eric Hoesli: Several issues are of special interest to me apart from those we just mentioned. The first is the discussion on the Caucasian region, which began last year. It has become apparent that the Kremlin’s policy on the North Caucasus, which consists, in particular, of limiting civil society and dismissing leaders who do not put up with the blind application of force, has been unsuccessful. On the contrary, a wave of violence is rising in the North Caucasus again. The situation is alarming. I would like to hear what the President and the Prime Minister now have to say on the issue as a continuation of last year’s discussions. Attitudes towards history—in particular, opinions of Stalinism—are also of vital importance, to my mind, because they remain relevant in Russia’s relations with the West. I see this as one of the central aspects of the Western perception of Russia. The matter is especially relevant in countries that border Russia. I get the impression that some people in the present-day Russian leadership have finally decided to accept Russian history as it is, and not play politics with the West on the issue. They regard such play as humiliating and, what is even worse, on unequal terms. “We accept everything and do no criticize anything,” is their position, which takes the West aback. Western people regard Stalin as a tyrant on par with Hitler. It would be interesting to know what the President or the Prime Minister or, better still, both of them, have to say on it all.

As soon as Iran has a nuclear weapon, it will be war because Israel will attack - and Israel will be supported by the West.

The answer of Iran will create quie a lot of losses in Israel and against military forces of NATO.

The political regime of Iran is weak : war will help him in the first moments. But after few months of war , there will be a revolution to push out the regime. The new Iranian regime will be pro-West because it will be the best way to open the country to investment from all parts of the World .

Also because the countries who have supported this regime as Russian KGB Inc did isolated themselves from Iranian people.

It will also consolidate his position in the area- with Irak and with Afghanistan. Of course with israel and Palestine.

Once more Putin , in his recent interview, put Russian KGB Inc on the way of isolation - not even China supports his position.

Of course Russia will support the consequences of his inwised - to say the least - position.

1) Iran has not invaded a neighbouring country for hundreds of years. Israel invades its neighbours on a regular basis.
2) Iran is a signatory of the NPT, Israel is not and illegally has nuclear weapons.
There is *no* evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons as there was no evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. For those that have forgotten after the US and Britain illegally invaded Iraq *no* nuclear weapons were found.

Very strange comment of Ashish Mittal ! You are speaking, MrAshish Mittal , like in the seventies during the Cold War. You seem to ignore that China and USA are builing a strategic partnership - as China is doing so with many countries in the Middle East - except Iran.

Only Russian KGB Inc has signed an agreement with Iran to send to Iran missiles - not China.

If Iran has nuclear weapons , immediately all the Middle East countries will need one because the main enemies of Iran is not Israel but the Arabic countries allies with USA as Egypt, etc.

Russian KGB Inc has no strategic partnership with any of these countries - except Iran.

Russian KGB Inc has a strategy to isolate herself from the West - Russian Federation is not even a WTO member which means a lot in term of development.

You seem also to forget that Iran has signed an agreement which forbides her to get nuclear weapons. It is the reason his government repeats that it doesn't want nuclear weapons.

Until nuclear weapons are banned altogether from the Planet none of their current holders - US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, etc - does carry any moral authority to demand abstinence from Iran or North Korea or whoever else. What confers them any kind of exclusive rights to possessing nuclear weapons apart from their military power?

And please do not come with the argumentation that those who abdicate to having them are protected by any means. The non-proliferation treaty is worth nothing, when a holder feels its interests seriously challenged. I remember very well that the UK sent one or more nuclear powered vessels carrying nuclear warheads to the South Atlantic when Argentina - who signed the NNP treaty - invaded the Falklands (Malvinas). No matter how wrong or right that was, England was not fighting for their lives to even consider employing nuclear weapons. And yet they did.

There is no hard evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. All the evidence shown, points to a civilian program. Iran has viable Uranium deposits and is diversifying its energy resources. This is due to the fact that most of Iran’s foreign exchange earnings come from oil and gas export. Iran is industrializing rapidly. So on the one hand, domestic energy requirements are increasing and on the other hand they cannot use their oil and gas for this. That is why Iran is investing in non oil based energy production. These include: wind (Iran is the only Middle Eastern country apart from Israel to produce wind turbines), Hydroelectric (16% of their electricity is produced that way), solar (they manufacture solar panels and are experimenting with thermal/solar power) and nuclear. Indeed in the 1960s and the 1970s it was Britain, The US and France who were encouraging the Iranians to start their nuclear program. The experimental (research) reactor in Isfahan was supplied by the US and France was about to build three reactors in Iran (one of them a fast breeder suitable for reprocessing and Plutonium production). The program was canceled after the revolution. They are simply trying to resurrect that program for the same reasons (economical and industrial as the Bushehr reactor is a light water one). It is true that enrichment technology could be used to produce weapons grade uranium as well as fuel rods for a civilian reactor. However there is not even a nanogram of evidence that the Iranians have been doing this. Unlike North Korea, India and Israel, Iran is a signatory to the NPT and so far has carried out all its legal obligation vis-à-vis that. As soon as they comply with one set of rules they are then changed. Under the NPT they have the right to enrich their own Uranium for their own reactors. The fact that they had to acquire their civilian know how in the black market points to one fact, they are not allowed to buy in the open market. As for their missile technology, they are all designed with conventional warheads. They need them to counter the threat of massively superior air forces in the region who challenge them. If Iran was to suspend enrichment, they would be in the ridiculous position of: mining their Uranium, sending it abroad for enrichment, importing the fuel rods and then exporting the spent fuel! The logical approach would be to allow Iran to have the full nuclear fuel cycle but under such stringent conditions of monitoring that would make cheating impossible. A hard task but very possible.

Dr. Qadeer Khan is not disgraced. He is founder of Pakistan's nuclear programme in response to India's nuclear programme. You cannot have harmony and peaceful living in a family where there is inequality and injustice. How, US and its allies can expect peace in the world of sovereign (complete or partial) states with their favour to India and Israel and opposition to Iran. Israel and America are bent upon destroying Iran's programme while North Korea's programme was not destroyed. Incidently today is 9/11 and it reminds of tragedy on this day which occured due to real or perceived (owing to bad policies of the previou US administrations)injustice caused by the US in international affairs. What the US is now doing in Afghanistan or Pakistan by attacking innocent civilians in large numbers, is not going to promote goodwill in the hearts and minds of the people of these regions despite their rulers like Karzai and Zardari being friend of US government.

What "military" nuclear program in iran are you referring to? According to the IAEA there is zero evidence of any such program. Even the US intelligence agencies say that such a program, if it ever existed, stopped in 2003. Quite unline North Korea, Iran is a signatory in good standing of the NPT and subject to regular IAEA inspections. Iran has offered to place additional restrictions on its nuclear program well beyond its legal obligations, for example by opening the program to multinational participation, thus making it impossible that the program could be secretly used to make nukes. This Iranian offer has been endorsed by international experts and the IAEA but the US insists, quite illegally, that Iran has to give up her right to nuclear fuel generation and should instead import its fuel. Nonsense. Iran is under no obligation to do this, and the Iranian people massively support their country's nuclear program.